Jump to content

sevry

Member
  • Posts

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sevry

  1. It's difficult for Catholics to see the 'best' in the Protestant Revolt. There were problems in the institutional church, which some attempted to repair. But faced with Luther's outright revolt, as it developed year by year, they rallied back to the cause. So there was an actual reformation. But Protestant historians insist it wasn't that, and will not call it that. And the genuine reformation, from within, as all reformation is, was had at the Council of Trent and that which immediately followed. Anathemas were directed to some of those things which putatively infuriated Luther. But Luther himself also came in for his share.
  2. Speaking as a Catholic, one is struck by a diversity of images, icons, statuary, at a Catholic church, if not many of the more 'reformed' type of Catholic. You will find the adorned statue of the child Jesus. You will find St. Joseph. You will find Our Blessed Mother. You will see Our Lord depicted in the eastern iconography, perhaps largely influenced by the wood painting of the Madonna now in Poland, reputedly painted by St. Luke, himself. You will see the stations above. You might see the Saints depicted in the stained glass. You will see the three altars, one to each side of the ornately fitted main altar, each with a crucifix bearing the image of Our Lord. Images, various images, of Jesus, can be seen with a glance. The church might seem to almost be inadequate to house so many figures and works of art - again, certain churches, that is. Iconoclasm predates the revolt of Martin Luther against The Church. Much of Protestantism was found in either earlier heresies, or in the final eastern schism. Why would one object to flourishing images, to statuary, to objects of devotion reminding one of that person? The general explanation goes to a denial of Saintly intercession. If the Saints cannot intercede by graces given them, then such might believe that images meant to promote our devotion to the cult of Saints should be suppressed.
  3. I was never much of a fan of Springsteen. I did appreciate the competency of his backing groups, of his composing and performance. He was very much a pro. But if anyone recalls the 'rollout' for the man, a couple of decades ago, one can remember that the word - hype - was frequently used. Billboards in Hollywood proclaimed him the 'latest thing'. Bruce who? He would start, and start again. Finally, after it all, he sort of caught on. But I would compare the 'launch' of Springsteen more to American Idol than the way in which say, Clapton, came on the scene. Springsteen was an industry promotion. Clapton just reached people with his playing and skill. Again, I don't say Springsteen is undeserving of praise. And it is not really the sort of music I like. Yes, of course, the liberal campaigning might have put off some fans. But that would assume that they otherwise did not like Kerry, regardless of their feelings about President Bush. I got the sense that his fanbase was pretty much the same for any Democrat cause, including the failed and much-hyped candidacy of the many faces of John Kerry. I doubt that others have suffered, either. Ronstadt had some hits decades ago, but I truly doubt that her fans have abandoned her. They would not have voted for Bush, perhaps. I would suspect the same is true for Whoopie Goldberg, who made the news at about the same time in the recent campaign. There likely won't be any boycotts of Sundance because Redford was so enthusiatically anti-Bush, or refusals to stock Paul Newman branded products on the shelves of Safeway, or other markets, some of whose executives probably gave almost exclusively to the Democrat. There might already be new offers for a 'fockers II', featuring literally the cast of a John Kerry convention. And I think Springsteen is like that. His fans are not the sort he offended. Streisand's fans are the same. De Niro's fans. Spielberg's. And so on.
  4. sevry

    Evolution

    But. This is one Catholic who would only be repeating himself to say that - evolution - is a concept, and does not appear to be a science. It appears to be even a superstition, as it must be believed, some believe, but cannot be consistently described or defined in any way that would satisfy scientific clarity. Ones attempt to scientifically state, as it were, evolution runs head on into someone else's statement. It's more than mere disagreement. It's more than just a few major competing theories. Few seem to agree even on the basics. One could perform the same scientific test in this very forum, with that hypothesis that previous 'studies' would be confirmed. Few could seriously and clearly state either the fact or theory, without disagreeing as to which is which, and what ought to be included, and in what fashion. I would also only be repeating myself, as well, to say that aspects of the sciences where evolutionists have borrowed for their purpose, such as genetics, such as aspects of biology and medicine, even perhaps cognitive psychology, or whatever has some establish science, some predictive metrics and momentarily accepted theory, do state their theories and do present their formulas, as well. The evolutionist might borrow the same and call them his own. But if the very statement of the 'fact' of evolution, and also the 'theory' of evolution, proves so elusive, then all the evolutionist can claim is that he curiously borrows in the hope of defining both fact and theory, perhaps; hoping, that is, that he can definitively say just what it is that he does.
  5. sevry

    Evolution

    To the contrary, one might agree that one of the 'beauties' of Darwinism is that, today, so few call themselves Darwinists. In the same intellectual pride, they imagine themselves better and more 'advanced' that the father of the field, themselves lacking any better theory, fact, definition or whatever else. There is certainly an anti-religious bent in Darwin himself. For he argues, even at his best, the theory of the disinterested Creator - God set in motion certain things in a quasi-deterministic fashion, a quantum yet somehow stilll mechanical universe, 'design' implied in the 'levers' and 'envelope' and guided by who? and washed his hands, essentially, of what would result. His Holiness has said and done many crazy things, for which he was roundly and publicly criticized over the years by Catholics, even by Evangelicals and others. There is this notion that the Pope is taken for the ends he serves, not as a moral guide in our desire to serve God. So one will claim that the Pope should be obeyed. But when such a one discovers that the Pope pleaded for the life of Terri Schiavo, you will be lucky if you get a response, and that finally coming might be heard as a mumble having to do with doings at the racetrack, rather than address any contradiction. One can help clarify when to listen by saying that in his exercise of the ordinary Magisterium, in proclaiming even ordinances based on established doctrinal teaching, such as his proclamation against any female priesthood, that His Holiness is to be obeyed. But if he expresses an opinion on the weather, short of any penned message he might have read let's say, any opinion on the character of an Italian politician, for example, or regarding any 'proof' of evolution, then one might say that's his opinion.
  6. sevry

    Evolution

    There are fields more scientific than others under this rubric of evolutionism. But the broad statements of theory, particularly from those who think they know, are a horrible and self-contradictory mash, often confusing fact with theory, theory with fact, and science with a sort of anti-religious cult. Now there is science in genetics. Fr. Mendel was onto something. And it borrows the formulas of sampling, and can explain and predict to a limited degree - as is true of actual science. There is science in biology, as not just an observational science, but also as one of experiment based on practice and theory. Paleontology has been rife with fraud. But in places, it too, is at least an observational science. But it's this broader sense of any simple sense or definition of - evolution - itself, which is what is problematic, so much so that one might fairly characterize it as a superstition of the 19th-20th centuries. I think that would be fair. That is, those who claim evolution is true, can't themselves really say what evolution is, at least where they also agree with most anyone else. Those who say evolution has been scientifically proven, presume too much and do not give science its due. To speak of evolution is to speak of a desire to explain a fossil record that suggests, mostly, a complexity growing from simplicity. It caused some to falsely adopt the notion that ontology recapitulates phylogeny, as they offered the false comparison with embryonic development. But one speaks of evolution and means chance mutation, and the chance of situation, based on an inherent genetic variability, on the level of a vaguely categorized 'population'. He points to an inherent adaptability in something so quickly regenerative as bacteria or viruses. The next 'outbreak' is caused not by the original, but by a new mutation - that is. But another speaks of evolution and means the etiology of life itself, which others would claim is entirely outside this vague notion of - evolution. Another speaks of life from 'space seed', then delivering the form of man from that of an ape-like creature, imbued at some mysterious point with a soul, as he cannot explain what happened to others of the same species. Another speaks of evolution and means only a mechanism for selecting mutation, which Darwin called 'natural selection'. And 'natural selection' might be all he'll say. While another might speak of evolution and insist upon other important mechanisms, as did Gould and others in their effort to explain the still mysterious fossil record, by way of a 'burst' of evolution, to accompany the slow 'geological' change, by chance, imagined by Darwin.
  7. There is a tendency to call any new book important when you agree with it, and to call it a classic when you agree with it entirely. [Rutler, Rev. George William.
  8. In 'another', he is conceivably arguing for the same obscenely long period of copyright protection, but just not necessarily for the original copyright owner or descendants. Why is there fairly little appreciation of great art? A) museums and classrooms might be figurative wastelands, preferring the 'ugly art' of the anti-artist. But copyright for masterpieces apparently resides, by international agreement, with whatever gallery happens to house the work. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if Gallery A in Oviedo, just to pick one, has an old Goya, then any effort to reproduce it must be approved by that gallery. Microsoft has threatened much the same. In attempting to scan a host of books for an online archive, do they then assert an exclusive right to display such work online, even if otherwise long out of copyright? It's essentially a new internet display copyright, which would make it impossible for the Gutenberg project, and so many others. Perhaps certain universities might be exempted, or buy their way clear. But maybe some of the best online copies of the most useful works, are private or vanity ventures, refused by universities only for ideological reasons and self-censorship? And so on. Copyright law, as I understand it, was designed to protect the interest and income of the author of a work. It became, I think, fairly quickly a right to be sold in the marketplace. As such it loses all cultural value. And the owner holds little sense of public duty to somehow publish. It will end badly, I think. Not to keep mentioning the Terri Shiavo case, but it was a living nightmare, and not just for Terri, day after day. The worst possible thing was done, hour by hour by hour. Murphy was working his law to death. If it could be done, if it could go bad - it did. And I think the same could happen with an abuse of copyright. If such abuse is possible, if it's made possible, at some point, it will be acted upon. I think, as with the Schiavo case, we are all powerless to act. I think we should appreciate what little remains of great culture of the past. Because . . just because.
  9. Maybe if not put off by the braggadocio of the man, but Hank's son does play real country on occasion, as do Skaggs and various others. The tendency among more of the touring groups is like that of Hank Jr., a blend of hard southern rock n roll among the old Hank Williams songs. I think, to be fair, you'd also have to include the southern electric slide blues, typ. of TX like SRV (and Tinsley Ellis, Ronnie Brooks, and too many to name), up to and including ZZ Top in that range of country music. Or is that what you meant by real country, as perhaps against country 'mall-pop' of assorted female artists? Country music is really the last big pop sector of American music not submerged into its niche of fans. And it includes a lot of styles. In that way, I don't know that we'd both lament, frankly, the demise of any popular taste for classical music, however, as the very idea of a classical music broadcast station 500 miles in any direction, in the middle of a metroplex/metropolis of five million or more people, is fast fading to memory, in any metroplex you want throughout the US.
  10. It's interesting you'd phrase that in terms of nationalism. People might point to the US as being as split, or 'balkanized', as ever. But in the past, all these groups came together on behalf of the nation, in an emergency. But musically, I don't see such nationalism, or those borders. Country music is the last really dynamic and vital pop music in general play, in the US. And it has included Mexican mariachi themes for as long as there have been such. Reduced more to niche, R & B 'hip-hop' may have borrowed some things from techno/dance-pop. I don't know, but it wouldn't surprize me. Certain pop-rock groups perhaps as well. And the metal bands and the 'heroes' like Zakk are now part of a relatively small and proudly independent sub-culture, of various sorts, but even they, too. And as a nationalism, today, much of pop music in the US, is British or from 'euro'. Even Ozzy survives, thanks to his sidemen, mostly. There will be a 2005 'Ozfest'. PBS has recently been showing the guitarist concert sponsored by Englishmen, Eric Clapton (second, third?, Brit 'invasion' - one loses track), including everyone from the Thunderbirds, Jimmy Vaughn (less gifted brother of the surpassingly gifted SRV), to Buddy Guy (once in duo with Hendrix in the late 60s, and all-around sometimes self-proclaimed genius), to BB King. His moving song has been annoyingly pressed into commercial service in two, not one, ad running repeatedly on US tv; leading some to remark that the great legacy of the 'boomer's, rock n roll, is now reduced to mere jingle for selling computer services and new cars. As for the style you mention, that techno/dance-pop may not borrow from all of this, from blues and jazz, from the 'stoned' sound or African sound (if you prefer) of trance 'hip-hop', from the guitar windings of Hendrix through SRV to Ted Nugent, from the design of Randy Rhoades and Ozzy to that of Stanley Turrentine or Robert Johnson, the Dukes of Dixieland, Neil Young, or who remain of Lynyrd Skynyrd (who didn't like Neil Young), it probably has more to do with the restrictive nature of the mechanical sound. The odd dirge of the publicly manaical composor of Dragula caught on with people only for a while following the film, The Matrix. I think it's been long forgotten. But Clapton might still listen to and study Robert Johnson. And classical composers might well still consider Dvorak, and Tchiakovsky. And on the mp3 sites, where regional artists might still even post, you might hear Pachelbel by guitar, of course, and strains of Two Gentlemen from Verona in the echoed guitar of a quartet, with extra fuzz. I think for 'techno', it's just the form. But since all is 'fusion', if not between styles then within the same of different variants and performers, perhaps dance-pop mechanical is of such variety, among certain groups, that one dare not characterize it broadly? I don't hear anything resembling it in the states, of course. But maybe I just run with the sort that doesn't. Probably be true whatever country I was in. Do you believe the 'euro' see this dance-techno-pop as somehow a nationalistic or even broadly 'euro' art, as they might root for a soccer team against the US because it was their country's soccer team, against the US?
  11. If you mean the old on-air melodramas, or even audio feeds of television programming, it's a good question. If you mean talk radio, of course, there are seemingly hundreds of archives and live streams, from around the world, on the www. Even in Spanish-speaking countries, or the middle east, perhaps even in far east, you might find many in English, presumeably while such broadcasts are allowed to remain. Oops, got one, now let me just - jjjsssssssssss.
  12. sevry

    Share a joke

    Odd that you don't see so many religious jokes. One can always borrow another and force fit it to suit; that is, as it were, old jokes and older jokes: -------------------------------------------------- A lawyer died, same day as the Pope, and both went to heaven. But then the lawyer was given better clothes. He was given a mansion in which to live. He was given a five course meal. The Pope was given a room in a nice hotel, and a continental breakfast. So the lawyer said to the angel, "There's been some confusion. This man who was Pope gets standard fare. And, myself, who's been a lawyer, I'm getting everything and more." And the angel said, "Yes, that's true. There have been more than one Pope in Heaven. But we've never had a lawyer." -------------------------------------------------- A man received a phone call from his pastor, who said, "I have some bad news and some worse news." The man asked, "What's the bad news?" The pastor said, "I'm back from my trip earlier than I expected." The man replied, "And the worse news?" "I picked up a new joke for the sermon, tonight." -------------------------------------------------- A pastor returned to his old college to look up a former professor. As he was waiting, he saw a copy of an exam sitting on the desk. And picking it up, he thought it looked very familiar. And it hit him. It looked like the same exam that he himself had been given back in his college days. The professor came in, said hello. and had an explanation. Indeed, the test may have been the same one. But the answers would now be entirely different.
  13. As I understand it, there's a lot of confusion and debate surrounding burial, and this burial, in that period. The Bible says that the tomb was new, and intended for another, but that the man who owned it and got the permission from Pilate prepared a sindon, which is also the word for the shroud; and I believe the root of the field itself, sindonology. There appears to have been a smaller face cloth, said to be in Oviedo Cathedral, in Spain, a saudarion. They believe it would not have been buried with the corpse, but only was applied at the cross to hide the face of the battered victim, as apparently was custom. Further strips or cords, of linen or even vines or branches, might be used to bind the limbs. As for the dating, if they indeed only measured damage from the fire, in particular, or other events, then the assumptions might be wrong, and particularly as subsequent tests apparently place the shroud in the time of Christ, with corrections and proper sampling of the cloth. That still does not remove the confusion as to practices in this time. Was the saudarion left on the face, or else employed as a cord around the jaw? Was something else binding the jaw, which many argue appears to be bound by examing the shroud image? Were the limbs further bound, or left free? But the idea of a head over back to top draping of a sindon is, I believe, something considered to be very possible.
×
×
  • Create New...